The problem with fundamental atheists is the same as fundamental Christians. They all seem to think the whole of the bible is literal.

Exactly. It's just The Bible. It's not gospel.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

This is the most bizarre threads I have read in some time. Personally, I think Noah is one of the better stories in the Bible, and also one of the stories that I would accept as based on some kind of factual event. I can't remember this much furoure when Evan Almighty was released.

This is the most bizarre threads I have read in some time. Personally, I think Noah is one of the better stories in the Bible, and also one of the stories that I would accept as based on some kind of factual event. I can't remember this much furoure when Evan Almighty was released.

I campaigned for an apology from the director and producers over the offence caused by that film - it was shite.

This is the most bizarre threads I have read in some time. Personally, I think Noah is one of the better stories in the Bible, and also one of the stories that I would accept as based on some kind of factual event. I can't remember this much furoure when Evan Almighty was released.

I remember it flooding the message boards...........

I'll get me coat.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.

No, I agree with Engle, he is totally 85% right. Only today did I discover that Prince of Egypt wasn't facts and that Clash of the Titans wasn't a true story. He's right, a film about Noah will totally brainwash kids into religion. However he's only 85% right, as this film won't be Christian or Islamic propaganda but another piece of Jewish propaganda in the same vein of Prince of Egypt and A Serious Man, there to make children think that stories from the Bereshit and Shemot are 100% fact and further their plans of world domination.

Those historical aspects that you chose to completely ignore. Call it "waffling" if you like, however it would be wise to be sure of all of your facts before you try to argue a case otherwise you're coming across as a total idiot.

I don't claim to be wise or have expertise in any field of knowledge. I only criticise what I know. As such, my criticisms are specifically targeted at Aronofsky's decision for making the film, the writers, producers and studios behind this film.

The Judeo-Christian myths and religions are prevalent in Hollywood cinema and American entertainment. Whether it be The Passion of the Christ, What Dreams May Come, Bruce Almighty or the final season of Lost. Each of these different examples either allude to religion or make outright religious and historical claims. In the process they validate these religions and myths and way of seeing the world which I describe as 'world-view'. They also validate their importance in our shared popular culture. Regardless of whether you watch these films, you will hear all about them.

When we look broadly at Hollywoods output and to a broader degree Western English speaking cinema, and then look at the cultural groups that comprise those societies, we find a disparity. In that the myths, cultures and religions of the majority are more often represented.

Is this important? I will argue that it is important.

There are clearly biases at play in Hollywood cinema. Many female actors discuss the lack of leading roles for women. From an industry and marketing perspective, put simply female leads too often do not reflect the types of profits studios are interested in. Not everyone can be the lead in Resident Evil. Most good actresses get by, but the point remains that there are biases. In this case a gender bias.

For the same reason Hollywood seldom makes films with female leads, they seldom make films that focus on cultural fringe groups or minority groups. It is well known that the Hollywood film industry has a large Jewish population. I have no qualms with Jewish people but it is clear that the interests in making this Noahs Ark film and the support for it come from this Jewish cultural group. Darren Aronofsky himself is Jewish.

What does it matter? Films such as this validate a core majority and further alienate the fringe minorities.

I use two examples. 20 years ago, Kevin Costner made a film about indigenous Americans. Dances with Wolves. It presented their culture, their beliefs, their spirituality and world-view in mainstream American cinema, It was hugely successful. As such the film was a validating experience for the indigenous Americans.

How many films in the subsequent 20 years have had the same impact for that minority group?

A few years ago, Danny Boyle made Slumdog Millionaire. This movie provided an insight into life in the slums of Mumbai. Though not a Hollywood film, this film was internationally successful. My friend grew up in the very same slums of Mumbai. He loved this film. Although, he said that as gritty as it was, it still wasn't as gritty as the real thing. He went to the cinema 4 times. For him it was a validating experience. Validating his culture, spirituality, plight, and world-view of people from this part of the world.

A lot of criticisms towards me have been about: 'nobody knows what the film will even be like yet, only that it is about Noahs Ark'

Well two things here. If it is a watered down version, omitting the implausable claims such as the Biblical god angry at the wickedness of man, the sending of a set of instructions by the god to Noah, and the rounding up of the animals. If it omits these details, then it could be considered religious revisionism. In which case it's just as bad as presenting the original material verbatim.

If it includes those details then it does a disservice to the real story of animals location in the world and the reasons for their location. They simply did not wander down Mt. Ararat and choose a random direction.

Either way you look at it, it's a bad idea.

Yes, there have been films over the years that criticize the bible and religion such as the ones previously mentioned. I would like to argue their merit as subversive or persuasive arguments.

Dogma. It was great and funny but it was an indie film that few Christians would have even bothered with. Why? the same reason I don't listen to Christian rock music. It's corrosive to my wellbeing and doesn't fit in with my world-view.

The Kingdom of Heaven. More of a historical argument than an existential one and a lacklustre Ridley Scott film to boot. It hardly achieved much.

The point here is that films that critique the Judeo-Christian myths do less damage than the ones that support it. The films that support the myths/religions validate the vitality of their world-view.

Meanwhile the fringe dwellers including non theists like myself, have their world-view further marginalized.. It's ideological elitism.

I use two examples. 20 years ago, Kevin Costner made a film about indigenous Americans. Dances with Wolves. It presented their culture, their beliefs, their spirituality and world-view in mainstream American cinema, It was hugely successful. As such the film was a validating experience for the indigenous Americans.

I think you will find just as many Native American people felt the film was speaking down to them and didn't acknowledge the complexity of their peoples. Last of the Mohican's is much closer to the realities of that world and the pressures facing those living in the tribal systems.

And what real damage does Noah's Ark do to people? Did Evan Almighty result in people believe the myth of the great flood and God? I doubt it. Heck 2012 did Noah's Ark, but no one seemed to bat an eyelid there.

Hollywood deals in myth - be it superheros or supercharged retelling of historical events. This film will be about the myth. No one, who doesn't already take the story literally, will be swayed into doing so by a film filled with CGI.

At the end of the day, beyond the Bible itself, the tale of the Flood is a damn good one. You have your main character consumed by an voices and driven to build, what most of his people see as a folly. This all builds, until the rains appear and the Flood begins, at which point you could explore life on the boat and the internal politics.

As for the animals- as I explained last page - the Bible was written at a time, when the variety of animals wasn't huge - no one knew about America, Asia or Down Under - so for them it wouldn't have been impossible. How will the film deal with it? Who knows. Maybe he won't put every animal on there - just the ones from the region.

The film will likely ask you to accept the existance of god, within the context of the film, in the same way you were asked to accept the existance of Zeus in Clash of the Titans.

And the Directors Cut (the only cut) of Kingdom of Heaven is very much an existential debate over the idea of a "perfect knight" (subtext being, a perfect Christian) - it is a magnificent film.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

I don't claim to be wise or have expertise in any field of knowledge. I only criticise what I know. As such, my criticisms are specifically targeted at Aronofsky's decision for making the film, the writers, producers and studios behind this film.

You really don't know anything btw....you almost became "Squidward denying the existence of Gandhi" with that Beatles comment.

quote:

The Judeo-Christian myths and religions are prevalent in Hollywood cinema and American entertainment. Whether it be The Passion of the Christ, What Dreams May Come, Bruce Almighty or the final season of Lost. Each of these different examples either allude to religion or make outright religious and historical claims. In the process they validate these religions and myths and way of seeing the world which I describe as 'world-view'. They also validate their importance in our shared popular culture. Regardless of whether you watch these films, you will hear all about them.

How do they do that? Also, you might be shocked to hear that *gasp* many people still have a strong connection to religion.

Also, are you really thinking that people took Bruce Almighty seriously?

quote:

When we look broadly at Hollywoods output and to a broader degree Western English speaking cinema, and then look at the cultural groups that comprise those societies, we find a disparity. In that the myths, cultures and religions of the majority are more often represented.

Is this important? I will argue that it is important.

There are clearly biases at play in Hollywood cinema. Many female actors discuss the lack of leading roles for women. From an industry and marketing perspective, put simply female leads too often do not reflect the types of profits studios are interested in. Not everyone can be the lead in Resident Evil. Most good actresses get by, but the point remains that there are biases. In this case a gender bias.

For the same reason Hollywood seldom makes films with female leads, they seldom make films that focus on cultural fringe groups or minority groups. It is well known that the Hollywood film industry has a large Jewish population. I have no qualms with Jewish people but it is clear that the interests in making this Noahs Ark film and the support for it come from this Jewish cultural group. Darren Aronofsky himself is Jewish.

You're right, it's just Hollywood. That's why cinema in other countries always has a balanced number of films about their minorities. oh no wait, aside from Iran, India and ironically the States, I can't think of a country that actually does that and tries to cover the broadest number of people in their country.... Also, how many times in these last few years have we seen a Hollywood film that is truly Jewish in its theme (coming from the States)? The only one I can think of in the last few years in A Serious Man.

I can't even think of films from Israel that had that insight in Jewish culture or religion.

quote:

I use two examples. 20 years ago, Kevin Costner made a film about indigenous Americans. Dances with Wolves. It presented their culture, their beliefs, their spirituality and world-view in mainstream American cinema, It was hugely successful. As such the film was a validating experience for the indigenous Americans.

How many films in the subsequent 20 years have had the same impact for that minority group?

Not a lot, as Dances with Wolves is one of those successful films that comes very rarely and Girv has this pretty much covered.

quote:

A few years ago, Danny Boyle made Slumdog Millionaire. This movie provided an insight into life in the slums of Mumbai. Though not a Hollywood film, this film was internationally successful. My friend grew up in the very same slums of Mumbai. He loved this film. Although, he said that as gritty as it was, it still wasn't as gritty as the real thing. He went to the cinema 4 times. For him it was a validating experience. Validating his culture, spirituality, plight, and world-view of people from this part of the world.

Really, there was some criticisms aimed towards it and the way it represented India from India itself. Also India needs no representation from the West to portray its citizens and variety of cultures, Bollywood and the regional cinemas do an excellent job themselves and probably a better one, since you might say that they have a first-hand experience of those cultures.

This reminds on how Zwick tried to tackle the fall of samurai culture in The Last Samurai and came up with only with iconographic nonsense that basically said very little on the state of the samurai in that age, especially when compared to those made in Japan itself.

quote:

A lot of criticisms towards me have been about: 'nobody knows what the film will even be like yet, only that it is about Noahs Ark'

Well two things here. If it is a watered down version, omitting the implausable claims such as the Biblical god angry at the wickedness of man, the sending of a set of instructions by the god to Noah, and the rounding up of the animals. If it omits these details, then it could be considered religious revisionism. In which case it's just as bad as presenting the original material verbatim.

If it includes those details then it does a disservice to the real story of animals location in the world and the reasons for their location. They simply did not wander down Mt. Ararat and choose a random direction.

Either way you look at it, it's a bad idea.

Or they might just consider it a fantasy and go along with it, which is how I and a few people I know consider the films on Moses (a fantasy).

Also, the great flood isn't just Judeo-Christian. You find it in Islam (Noah is mentioned in it as well) in throughout the world. It's something of a mytheme.

quote:

Yes, there have been films over the years that criticize the bible and religion such as the ones previously mentioned. I would like to argue their merit as subversive or persuasive arguments.

Few? Bunuel did an entire career out of it.

quote:

Dogma. It was great and funny but it was an indie film that few Christians would have even bothered with. Why? the same reason I don't listen to Christian rock music. It's corrosive to my wellbeing and doesn't fit in with my world-view.

And yet I know a good number of Christians (I live in a country with 98% of people being classified as Catholic) who thought it was hilarious. I did but then I discovered it was rather juvenile. Oh and it was made by a Christian himself.

quote:

The Kingdom of Heaven. More of a historical argument than an existential one and a lacklustre Ridley Scott film to boot. It hardly achieved much.

Explain more, I want to know how the three hour version didn't achieve much.

quote:

Meanwhile the fringe dwellers including non theists like myself, have their world-view further marginalized.. It's ideological elitism.

Whoah, and I thought the Christians had a tendency of self-victimizing.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 3/12/2011 2:42:03 PM >

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

Just because a film says something, doesn't mean it's absolutely so, regardless of what the source material is. Most films are not documentaries. They are ENTERTAINMENT!!!!!

Taking recent, history, for instance. I know that the B-17F 44-124485 "Memphis Belle" was touted as the first B-17 to complete 25 missions and go home. The 1990 film of the same name is a story, based around that aircraft, but more importantly, the crews and aircraft of the 8th Air Force, operating out of the UK.

It is a film based on REAL, TANGIBLE FACT. Not a myth. Now, I know many aviation enthusiasts can pick holes in it (shit, I can, but I don't), but for the vast majority of the viewing public, it doesn't matter. They want to be entertained.

Now, for all you know, people might go to this film, watch it, and come out thinking "Hmm, I'd like to know more about that event". Shit, as bad as Pearl Harbor was, it STILL got people interested in the events depicted in the film. Also, for all you know, the film might turn out to be a complete turd that nobody will go and see.

Personally, I think you're getting worked up for a big bag of fuck-all.

A wiser man than me once said 'The number of words a person says is largely irrelevant, but you can usually surmise that the greater the number of words used, the less a person has to say, because the value of words (particularly the words of other people) is often lost on those who appear to believe the way to win an argument is to be last person still talking after everybody else has left the room'

Actually, just made that up, cos, I'm like cool, and stuff. Or Not. But this thread is holed below the water line, so it doesn't really matter what is said in it any more.

You really don't know anything btw....you almost became "Squidward denying the existence of Gandhi" with that Beatles comment.

whoah, someones got baggage. that was on page 2 or 3 wasn't it? And thank you for telling me that I don't know anything. Knowing that I don't know anything means that I now know something, right?

quote:

quote:

How do they do that? Also, you might be shocked to hear that *gasp* many people still have a strong connection to religion.

Really? now I know two things. You're like a human wikipedia.

Also, are you really thinking that people took Bruce Almighty seriously?

Yes of course, didn't you read that I said that before? Oh sorry, no you didn't. because I didn't say that before. But like many people in this forum, you are both misunderstanding my points and attaching to them meanings of your own which though far less intelligent meanings, are at a more simplified level of understanding that you are comfortable with and capable of contextualising in your juvenile mentality.

quote:

You're right, it's just Hollywood. That's why cinema in other countries always has a balanced number of films about their minorities. oh no wait, aside from Iran, India and ironically the States, I can't think of a country that actually does that and tries to cover the broadest number of people in their country

I don't believe for a second that you have a depth of cinematic knowledge on each and every country. You say 'you can't think of a country'. I wouldn't proclaim to know so much about international cinema.

quote:

.... Also, how many times in these last few years have we seen a Hollywood film that is truly Jewish in its theme (coming from the States)? The only one I can think of in the last few years in A Serious Man.

School Ties. Bye, Bye Braverman, Enemies, A Love Story, Ship of Fools, The Boat is Full, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Radio Days, The Great Dictator, The Shop On Main Street, and Gentleman's Agreement. Here is a list of more http://momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/10/200910- Great_Jewish_Films.html

But..., that wasn't the point I was making. I'm sorry I can't simplify it anymore for you. Try reading it again. Is there a parent or guardian nearby who could help you with the big words?

quote:

I can't even think of films from Israel that had that insight in Jewish culture or religion.

The link above has those films.

quote:

Not a lot, as Dances with Wolves is one of those successful films that comes very rarely and Girv has this pretty much covered.

Go Girv, you've got each others back. What are you Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte in Another 48 Hours? How did I become the villain? Standing up for minority groups underrepresentation in popular culture and Hollywood. Or is it because I'm new to the Empire forum tribe. Are you trying to put me in the proverbial cauldron and serve me to the cannibals.

quote:

Really, there was some criticisms aimed towards it and the way it represented India from India itself.

Like I said, my friend grew up in those slums and he rated it, or did you skim that bit?

His opinion is worth a thousand opinions of critics, so put that in your pipe and smoke it!

quote:

Also India needs no representation from the West to portray its citizens and variety of cultures, Bollywood and the regional cinemas do an excellent job themselves and probably a better one, since you might say that they have a first-hand experience of those cultures.

You have western friends who watch Bollywood films? I don't. At least not often. I do however have western friends who watched Slumdog Millionaire.

quote:

This reminds on how Zwick tried to tackle the fall of samurai culture in The Last Samurai and came up with only with iconographic nonsense that basically said very little on the state of the samurai in that age, especially when compared to those made in Japan itself.

I'm in Japan, and my Japanese friends like that film.

quote:

Or they might just consider it a fantasy and go along with it, which is how I and a few people I know consider the films on Moses (a fantasy).

A few people you know? who are these people? what the hell does it matter what they think? What do you think for yourself? Your the one arguing.

Yes. Many will consider it a fantasy. But Biblical literalists will likely take it literally. As for the 40% of Americans who believe in Creationism and that the world is only 10 millions years old, this film will likely be a validation of their world-view.

quote:

Few? Bunuel did an entire career out of it.

Well, tell us about Bunuel instead of bitching. I'm interested to know more. You're clearly very knowledgable about cinema. Why don't you enrich the discussion instead of taking cheap shots at the new dude?

quote:

And yet I know a good number of Christians (I live in a country with a 98% of people being classified as Catholic) who thought it was hilarious.

Are you part of the 98% or the 2%? I have no idea if Dogma was a controversial film or not. My point here is that a film that is critical of religion is harmless as it is often boycotted by the members of the religion it critiques. On the other hand A film that celebrates a religion is validating for its members as it validates their value in the broader domestic or international community. Imagine for a moment you live in Chad, Do you think that the rest of the world would be thinking about you regularly? Probably not. But if a movie like Slumdog Millionaire was made about Chad, although it might not be culturally accurate, it might possibly be a validating experience for the people there.

quote:

Explain more, I want to know how the three hour version didn't achieve much

Not following you here. Please explain more. (Note how I say please.)

quote:

Whoah, and I thought the Christians had a tendency of self-victimizing.

I'm merely stating the truth. At least I put my world-view on the table. I dare you to do it. So are you part of the 98% or the 2%

A wiser man than me once said 'The number of words a person says is largely irrelevant, but you can usually surmise that the greater the number of words used, the less a person has to say, because the value of words (particularly the words of other people) is often lost on those who appear to believe the way to win an argument is to be last person still talking after everybody else has left the room'

Actually, just made that up, cos, I'm like cool, and stuff.

No. You made it up because you had nothing of relevance or of intellectual value to add to the discussion.

Though you might if you dug a bit deeper.

Note how I see it as a discussion and you see it as an argument. That's interesting isn't it.

whoah, someones got baggage. that was on page 2 or 3 wasn't it? And thank you for telling me that I don't know anything. Knowing that I don't know anything means that I now know something, right?

It's precisely what you said and what you kept arguing with funky with.

quote:

Yes of course, didn't you read that I said that before? Oh sorry, no you didn't. because I didn't say that before. But like many people in this forum, you are both misunderstanding my points and attaching to them meanings of your own which though far less intelligent meanings, are at a more simplified level of understanding that you are comfortable with and capable of contextualising in your juvenile mentality.

Seriously, what are you saying? What are you saying that people here haven't rebutted or isn't totally asinine.

quote:

I don't believe for a second that you have a depth of cinematic knowledge on each and every country. You say 'you can't think of a country'. I wouldn't proclaim to know so much about international cinema.

It's countries whose films I tend to watch and countries who tend to cater for some minorites (in the case of Iran, Kurdish cinema). So shut up. Do you find a lot of films in Japan about the Anu people or the immigrants in Japan? Not many.

So basically, in the last 20 years, America has given us only these three out of your list (to think you could have mentioned The Grey Zone). Well done on proving my point.

quote:

The link above has those films.

Doesn't work and the characters simply being Israeli don't count.

quote:

Go Girv, you've got each others back. What are you Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte in Another 48 Hours? How did I become the villain? Standing up for minority groups underrepresentation in popular culture and Hollywood. Or is it because I'm new to the Empire forum tribe. Are you trying to put me in the proverbial cauldron and serve me to the cannibals.

Yeah poor you. You're like Jesus.

quote:

Like I said, my friend grew up in those slums and he rated it, or did you skim that bit?

His opinion is worth a thousand opinions of critics, so put that in your pipe and smoke it!

No it doesn't. Salman Rushdie was born in Bombay from a Muslim family, ie, were the film is set and the religion of the characters in the film, and he still didn't like it. He might be in the slums but he certainly is in the same city. Not that I give a damn, I just thought that it was half a great movie.

Also, INDIAN CRITICS

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

quote:

You have western friends who watch Bollywood films? I don't. At least not often. I do however have western friends who watched Slumdog Millionaire.

One or two, more watched Slumdog Millionare and some didn't like it at all, which was irrelevant to the point, the Indians still have their own cinema to represent them, some of which do decently in the West.

quote:

I'm in Japan, and my Japanese friends like that film.

Many people like that film, I didn't. So what?

I know Germans who detested Downfall (or most of their cinema) and Chinese who hated Hero. Does that make their opinions more valid then mine? No.

quote:

A few people you know? who are these people? what the hell does it matter what they think? What do you think for yourself? Your the one arguing.

It's a fantasy, that was pretty much clear. I'm sure many see it that way.

quote:

Yes. Many will consider it a fantasy. But Biblical literalists will likely take it literally. As for the 40% of Americans who believe in Creationism and that the world is only 10 millions years old, this film will likely be a validation of their world-view.

OH NO SOME IDIOTS WILL TAKE IT SERIOUSLY WHATEVER SHALL WE DO

quote:

Well, tell us about Bunuel instead of bitching. I'm interested to know more. You're clearly very knowledgable about cinema. Why don't you enrich the discussion instead of taking cheap shots at the new dude?

How about you look for him? The idea that Christianity or Christians haven't been criticized in cinema is ridiculous and that anti-theists are marginalized is silly. Did you miss Agora and Religulous recently?

quote:

Are you part of the 98% or the 2%?

98% as I'm baptized from birth but like some people who have been baptized, I'm agnostic (while others atheists). Still a minority though, I guess.

quote:

I have no idea if Dogma was a controversial film or not. My point here is that a film that is critical of religion is harmless as it is often boycotted by the members of the religion it critiques.

But there's been a lot of those cases.

quote:

On the other hand A film that celebrates a religion is validating for its members as it validates their value in the broader domestic or international community.

How does it validate it? Does painting Christ going into the heavens validate his ascension? No it doesn't, it just portrays it.

quote:

Imagine for a moment you live in Chad, Do you think that the rest of the world would be thinking about you regularly? Probably not. But if a movie like Slumdog Millionaire was made about Chad, although it might not be culturally accurate, it might possibly be a validating experience for the people there.

Chad isn't India though. It's not one of the most populous countries in the world, a forecoming superpower, it's without a cinema culture to represent it and quite stricken in poverty. They are two totally different countries.

quote:

Not following you here. Please explain more. (Note how I say please.)

Ie, why do you think that?

quote:

I'm merely stating the truth. At least I put my world-view on the table. I dare you to do it. So are you part of the 98% or the 2%

You mean like the worldview of Religulous? The worldview of Agora and The Sea Inside? The worldview of Life of Brian? The worldview of There will be Blood? The worldview of Pasolini? The worldview of Fellini? The worldview of Bergman? The worldview of Kubrick? The worldview of Inherit the Wind?

There you go now stop complaining of not having any representation.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 3/12/2011 6:10:20 PM >

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.